Monday, February 08, 2016

Instead of wasting the time and effort thinking about baseball, wouldn’t it be more productive for our elected representatives to concern them with one of this state’s biggest problems? Water quality.

How many cities and towns have problems like the lead levels found in Sebring, Ohio? And how many draw their water supplies from lakes containing massive amounts of toxic algae, like Toledo and Celina?

Conservation groups around the Great Lakes region are calling for states to become more active in cleaning up lakes, especially those used for drinking water. As one group told the governor of Michigan, they’re tired of reading about plans; they want to see some action.

And what about Obama’s drone policy? They should condemn that as well, like I do.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Washington (CNN) Despite being backed by the monumental Right to Rise super PAC, Jeb Bush said Monday he would "eliminate" the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for super PACs.

"If I could do it all again I'd eliminate the Supreme Court ruling" Citizens United, Bush told CNN's Dana Bash. "This is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can't be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that's their affiliate."

Bush's Right to Rise super PAC has dominated the fundraising race, pulling in $117.6 million last year, according to the latest FEC filings. But that money has not been enough to stop Bush's fall from the front of the Republican pack. And Right to Rise, run by Bush confidant Mike Murphy, has become the subject of derision among Bush supporters.

In order to overturn the court ruling, Bush has said he would seek a constitutional convention, where he would also push for term limits and balanced budget amendment.

OK, *now* Jeb! is finished. Attacking Citizens United is 100X worse than Trump praising eminent domain. Heck, it's right up there with Hillary the Progressive bending over for the investment banks.

Bill Clinton uncorked an extended attack on Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday, harshly criticizing Mr. Sanders and his supporters for what he described as inaccurate and “sexist” attacks on Hillary Clinton.

“When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” Mr. Clinton said, deriding Mr. Sanders’s oft-mentioned call for a political revolution.

The former president, addressing a few hundred supporters at a junior high school here, portrayed his wife’s opponent for the Democratic nomination as hypocritical, “hermetically sealed” and dishonest. He even likened an incident last year, in which Sanders staffers obtained access to Clinton campaign voter data, to stealing a car with the keys in the ignition.

Mr. Clinton discussed the race for nearly 50 minutes, and his comments took on a harder edge the longer he spoke. What began as a testimonial to Mrs. Clinton’s leadership and a statesmanlike lecture on her approach to issues evolved into an angrier recitation of grievances against Mr. Sanders and his fervent supporters.

Bill may be steamed that the Sanders campaign is attracting all the hot young women (who are looking for boys, or so I'm told).

. . . until one more Republican Supreme Court justice comes along and brings her back to reality.

Even this is fantasy. There's no guarantee that an additional GOP-appointed Justice causes the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and even if it did, that would simply leave the issue to the states, which was the liberal position pre-Wade.

There's no guarantee that an additional GOP-appointed Justice causes the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and even if it did, that would simply leave the issue to the states, which was the liberal position pre-Wade.

How would anyone be able to tell the difference? Do we need to point out again how the states opposed to abortion have effectively gutted a "national" right per Roe v. Wade? Before you berate me, I note this as someone who is pro-choice.

: Actually as I believe Zonk pointed out, it's not so much that drones are bad but rather the way they're currently being used.

Heh - yes, this is my position.

If drones can accomplish the same aims as a piloted aircraft or platoon of troops or even a special forces team - then I see zero reason why we wouldn't deploy them in place of risking actual lives.

However, my understanding is that we don't apply the same sort of "rules of engagement" and "command and control" to drone warfare as we do to human elements of warfare.

Do that and I'm perfectly fine with drones.

Whether it's eliminating terrorist elements or fighting another nation - if we've collectively decided that doing so is in our national interests, why wouldn't we want to accomplish those same things but in a manner that only risks circuits and metal rather than flesh and blood?

My problem with drone warfare is that from what I've read, we've employed it as though removing the 'human risk' from OUR side of the equation has been transposed over to being the same thing as removing the human element from the OTHER side of the equation... i.e., we're much more willing to "take the shot" when it's not a cruise missile from a ship, fighter jet, or sniper with actual skin in the game and we're much less cognizant of collateral damage or potential innocents being impacted.

My rule of thumb is just that we should apply the same restraint and careful target selection/oversight/command-and-control to drone warfare as we would modern conventional warfare.

I don't see why we would "play fair" with people who DON'T have drones (assuming our basic, technologically agnostic aim is the same) any more than we would "play fair" with an enemy that doesn't have tanks, submarines, or supersonic jets.

The real issue seems to me that the predominant thinking appears to be that removing our end of the human element from the decision means that the whole scenario should/can change... and that's where I have a problem. If there's too much risk of being wrong/collateral damage, etc to send in a fighter squadron or special teams force to take out a target - then the same should be applied to using a drone instead.

Biology itself bakes it all in, too -- there's a reason that 'sex' is pleasurable and there's a reason that animals in heat with hump whatever's handy. It's nature's way of ensuring the continuation of the species.... so I suspect even in a completely atheistic or even completely secular/agnostic society, the qualms would likely still exist because our biological imperatives as a species still tell us to #### in order to reproduce and perpetuate the species.

"Qualms" are still 'feelings' and 'feelings' are still just reactions in brain chemistry... Remove religion/culture from the occasion and sure, I imagine qualms would still persist because of primitive biological imperatives hardwired into us... at least for a time - because just like the appendix or hairiness or whatever - primitive and 'fading as a necessity' facts of biology don't just neatly snip off when no longer necessary. They subside over time until they're no longer necessary for the species.

In other words, just because it's vestigial organ - we don't just (usually) go about removing appendixes medically unless the vestigial organ creates the necessity of removal. The brain/brain chemistry isn't immune to this same sort of thing... the 'qualms' will persist individually even though the human species is in no danger of dying out due to selective termination of fertilization.

This is Zonk from the previous thread.

There are so many questionable assertions here that I'm not sure where to begin, other than to say that I don't think you understand the implications of what you are arguing.

You have basically arguing that moral accountability is a vestigial organ that is no longer necessary. Now I don't think you actually believe that (unlike Morty, who I think may) but that's the implication of what you are asserting.

Now there is plenty of rational evidence that you are wrong about this. However, even if you aren't it is an unliveable proposition. Human beings are moral beings. They cannot live (as they are) without it.

The really scary thing is that even this doesn't mean you are wrong since there is nothing to say that we must remain human.

Strongly suggest folks read the article linked in #3, which, unless you believe it was made up from whole cloth, shows every indication of relying on high level leaks from Hillary's team, including her campaign manager (or those close to him). A small sample of the article:

Ultimately, the disorganization is the candidate’s own decision-making, which lurches from hands-off delegation in times of success to hands-around-the-throat micromanagement when things go south.

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was the Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist – a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008 – and disperse decision-making responsibility to a sprawling team with fuzzy lines of authority.

“There’s nobody sitting in the middle of this empowered to create a message and implement it,” said one former Obama 2008 aide. “They are kind of rudderless… occasionally Hillary grabs the rudder, but until recently she was not that interested in [working on messaging]… Look, she going to be the nominee, but she’s not going to get any style points and if she isn’t careful she is going to be a wounded nominee. And they better worked this #### out fast because who ever the Republicans pick is going to be 29 times tougher than Bernie.”

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was the Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist – a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008

The year after I graduated from college, my former college roomate's GF needed an abortion. Her father, who was a conservative political columnist from Texas and an LBJ confidante, was a thoroughly nasty son of a ##### who would have disowned her if he'd known about it, and as a result her friends and his friends had to pool our resources and come up with the five hundred bucks to perform the procedure. Her father could have afforded to pay for a hundred abortions, but obviously asking him would have been out of the question.

This was in 1968, five years pre-Roe, and to women her age the right to choose was most definitely not an abstract question. And if any younger woman thinks it's an abstraction today, she has people like Steinem to thank for affording her that luxury, or at least afford it until one more Republican Supreme Court justice comes along and brings her back to reality.

Is this "needed" as in "was going to die of an ectopic pregnancy without one," or "needed" as in my daughter's "I need to have dessert"?

Needed, as in "didn't want to be disowned by her parents and have her life thrown into complete turmoil because of a defective condom." How heartless can a 21 year old girl be?

You have basically arguing that moral accountability is a vestigial organ that is no longer necessary. Now I don't think you actually believe that (unlike Morty, who I think may) but that's the implication of what you are asserting.

No - I'm arguing that your specific application of "moral accountability" is manifested in a vestigial way... i.e., "life begins at conception" ~ "an embryo is a child" ~ "abortion in all cases in killing a child".

Again - religious dogma did (and I believe still does) hold that a man "spilling his seed" anywhere OTHER THAN in the baby-making zone is a sin... and I don't think you'd find many folks nowadays that find masturbation as a lapse in moral accountability. Ditto homosexuality - it was/is a "sin" because it doesn't service the primitive directive to reproduce and perpetuate the species.

The period we're talking about here was a virtually unreconizable period of gestation to early mankind - and likewise, we're talking about a period where people had a very limited concept of the 'world' (and how many people were in it). Mix in tribalism (we need more people in our tribe to overcome the other tribes)... again - even in very early Christianity, polygamy wasn't exactly forbidden (I know theological scholars/biblical historians differ on the matter), but we come back to the basic neutral idea that a woman impregnated is unable to get 'more pregnant with more offspring' during that 9 months, while the male can impregnate other women during that period.

I just think you're essentially skipping a step by making a very specific example out to be a much broader concept.

I just don't see the broader concept of "moral accountability" having the same specific application to abortion... because if one does, then again - whither masturbation, whither homosexuality, etc. To make the broader completely applicable to the specific, you end up tying yourself in logical knots... i.e., a woman can masturbate all she wants because the act in a female doesn't expend one of the two basic elements of a person, whereas with a man, it does...

The really scary thing is that even this doesn't mean you are wrong since there is nothing to say that we must remain human.

Of course... because if you define 'human' as not just the pure biology but the biology + cultural attributes/morality (to some degree), we're already very different from 'humans' of just a few thousands years ago. Slavery would be just one example - there was nothing morally wrong with slavery in general to human societies of then.

I'm not nearly smart enough to know what the basic, fundamentals of "moral accountability" are -- I'm just saying that neither is anyone else.

For all I know, I'm an active participant in perpetuating the most massive genocide in the history of existence by being an omnivore... and some future iteration of humanity will view the consumption of flesh of any sort as every bit as morally reprehensible as pro-lifers view abortion. Some day, 'humans' might even view consumption of any naturally occurring organism as barbaric - and believe that anyone who doesn't take in the basic sustenance via artificially generated hunks of proteins, amino acids, etc as some sort of monster.

We collectively agree from time to time on the specifics - and abortion is simply one of those specifics.

If one's faith dictates that life begins at conception - and from the moment of fertilization, we have a "human life" in the equation - that's a learned/religious view that may or may not also have some primitive biological backing in the current state of our brain's chemical wiring.

If one does not share that faith, I don't think there's anything morally UNaccountable in saying that the "life" of the potential mother-to-be - which everybody agrees is a human being without exception, takes precedence over what the pro-choice position sees a "pre-life" or collection of cells that may eventually become a fetus and a human being.

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was the Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist – a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008

Very similar to 2008

Hah?

The similarity to 2008 is the dysfunction, staff-blaming, leaking & finger-pointing, not the absence of Mark Penn, in case that wasn't clear. RTFA to get the whole picture.

The similarity to 2008 is the dysfunction, staff-blaming, leaking & finger-pointing, not the absence of Mark Penn, in case that wasn't clear. RTFA to get the whole picture.

2008 where she finished second, in the closest modern primary ever, to one of the great campaigners and candidates in modern history. Sanders ain't Obama. And of course such discord is both usually overstated - especially in losses - and a certain amount of chaos is a Clinton signature (which is not great, but there you have it).

Hillary will win the democratic nomination, though peak "Sanders can win" silliness will likely peak over the next week or so. Then we get states with a democratic electorate less liberal and less white.

I'm not an expert here but you are wrong about much of the history here. Abortion wasn't even a crime for much of the middle ages, and where it was, there remained similar debates over the dividing line.

Moreover, no one has ever thought that masturbation was killing a child, rather the prohibitions against masturbation stem from the idea that sex should take place in the context of marriage and reproduction. It is not obvious that masturbation was more sinful than, say, prostitution. People still did those things.

Thus, it cannot be that opposition to abortion is a vestigial relic of religion. Quite the contrary, it is a relatively recent phenomenon rooted, for the most part, in progressive ideas concerning human beings. This is why abortion is the poisoned chalice of liberalism. It is a violation of the most fundamental thing that liberals believe, the equality of all human beings. A violation that can only be justified through obfuscation.

My reasoning is not medievalist. My reasoning is quite liberal. Indeed, in many ways I am the only liberal here.

Is this "needed" as in "was going to die of an ectopic pregnancy without one," or "needed" as in my daughter's "I need to have dessert"?

Needed, as in "didn't want to be disowned by her parents and have her life thrown into complete turmoil because of a defective condom." How heartless can a 21 year old girl be?

Pity society doesn't offer her the third choice of selling the newborn on an open market. Oh but please, oh great moralists, let's get back to your discussing when to start investigating miscarriages for signs of foul play, that's a real solution to our pressing issues.

2008 where she finished second, in the closest modern primary ever, to one of the great campaigners and candidates in modern history. Sanders ain't Obama.

So why isn't Hillary wiping the floor with the elderly socialist, who she led by 40-50% less then a year ago?

Here's an even money proposition I'll offer to you or anyone else, with me taking the affirmative: By the time the primary season is over,** Hillary Clinton will have amassed a higher percentage of the convention delegates than Barack Obama did in 2008.

Any takers?

** I'm not talking about the formal (and likely unanimous) votes that one usually sees before the end of the convention itself. I mean the percentage of delegates she'll have acquired after California, or whenever the last primary is held.

I'm not an expert here but you are wrong about much of the history here. Abortion wasn't even a crime for much of the middle ages, and where it was, there remained similar debates over the dividing line.

It's been a while since I was last pouring over early modern and medieval medical texts, but I believe (as in most things) Aristotle was the authority. I don't recall when he placed the all important line, but I think he had a different timescale depending on the gender of the fetus. Though how one was supposed to know the gender of a 3 month old fetus in the 12th century I'm not sure.

Gaelan is correct (to the best of my recollection) that the early modern and medieval discussions of abortion come across as oddly familiar to the 21st century reader. It all depends on who you ask, at what point in the pregnancy the abortion is performed, why it's being performed (for the safety of the mother, etc.), how it's being performed (via some medical instrument, or some herbal concoction), who is performing it, and any number of other factors.

In the early modern period I know there is a great deal of legislation and directives issued to officials dealing with cracking down on infanticide...which is a fairly strong indication that it was happening fairly often. I just finished perusing a sample of coroner's reports from late 16th century Sussex. There was certainly no shortage of murdering babies there (although fewer cases than babies and small children dying by accident because they had no supervision in the home while both parents worked the field).

From the previous OT thread, proving once again that YR is the only person asking hard questions and offering real solutions:

If someone is going to die without a transfusion of a specific rare blood type, and you have that blood type but don't care to donate, should the law demand you subsume your bodily autonomy to save the life of a third party? Perhaps for blood but not a kidney?

I believe this legal issue was settled when Picard declined to force Worf to donate his blood to a wounded Romulan, though he was awfully disappointed that he didn't volunteer.

Hillary will win the democratic nomination, though peak "Sanders can win" silliness will likely peak over the next week or so. Then we get states with a democratic electorate less liberal and less white.

You mean like Michigan or North Carolina? But gee, how can those backwards states possibly compare in prestige to Iowa and New Hampshire?

Here's an even money proposition I'll offer to you or anyone else, with me taking the affirmative: By the time the primary season is over,** Hillary Clinton will have amassed a higher percentage of the convention delegates than Barack Obama did in 2008.

Any takers?

Again, Andy, if you want to make a point with the "Oh yeah, bet me" schtick, you can't offer sucker odds.

So why isn't Hillary wiping the floor with the elderly socialist, who she led by 40-50% less then a year ago?

Here's an even money proposition I'll offer to you or anyone else, with me taking the affirmative: By the time the primary season is over,** Hillary Clinton will have amassed a higher percentage of the convention delegates than Barack Obama did in 2008.

Any takers?

Again, Andy, if you want to make a point with the "Oh yeah, bet me" schtick, you can't offer sucker odds.

Of course it would be sucker odds, but from the tone of pretty much everything you've been posting here lately about Hillary's chances, you can't blame me for assuming that you'd be a prime sucker.

So why isn't Hillary wiping the floor with the elderly socialist, who she led by 40-50% less then a year ago?

There has been exactly one vote so far. Do you honestly think Sanders is going to win? Do you think he will made it interesting? Will he get anywhere near the number of delegates Hillary got in 2008?

Hint: The correct answer here in reality to all those questions is no.

But concern troll away regarding Hillary. She will win the Democratic nomination, as I said she would years ago, to the disbelief of many. And Andy is largely correct , if Rubio is not the GOP nominee, or rather if Trump or Cruz is the nominee, then the GOP is in real trouble.

So why isn't Hillary wiping the floor with the elderly socialist, who she led by 40-50% less then a year ago?

Here's an even money proposition I'll offer to you or anyone else, with me taking the affirmative: By the time the primary season is over,** Hillary Clinton will have amassed a higher percentage of the convention delegates than Barack Obama did in 2008.

Anyone else notice that Andy's response offered no explanation for why Hillary isn't currently mopping the floor with Sanders. Rather, he appears to want to offset his "Hillary against the field" bets with new wagers that don't require Hillary to actually be elected President of the United States. Good strategy.

the early modern and medieval discussions of abortion come across as oddly familiar to the 21st century reader.

I'd guess this is because it's an incredibly hard topic that touches on the frontiers of biology, ethics and emotion even to this day. I don't fully trust anyone who is a diehard on either side of the pro-choice or pro-life line. For at least a time during pregnancy there are two people there. Unlike many, I don't think that is true for the entire pregnancy but I've never met this person who, when a pregnant woman miscarries only mourns for her. If they didn't lose a child, what is the mourning for? I HAVE known women who lost babies throughout the spectrum: first, second and third trimesters. I've known two women who lost babies in childbirth or within a couple of days. The mourning of the mother who lost the baby third trimester was indistinguishable, or as much as these things can be, from the mothers who lost babies after birth. That was not true at all of the woman her lost her baby first trimester and the lady who lost it in second trimester was somewhere in between. Any of us who have known expectant mothers, certainly those who have fathered children, don't treat them like they're a single human. The idea that we don't, generally, consider a baby in utero to be a baby is inconsistent with our actions toward mothers who want the baby. This is more evident later in pregnancy.

Point is, I'd be pretty comfortable with a line in there somewhere after which we consider the baby a baby. Where to put it? Yeah, no idea. In theory, I have no problem with a law that says: after week X (where X is >12 and <32) a woman cannot elect to have an abortion. I'd be adamantly opposed to a ban on elective abortions prior to month 3 or 4 and am pretty squeamish with the idea that abortions in month 8 or 9 are legal. I'm clearly for actions to save the mother if necessary and can't see anyone opposing it: if the mother dies, the baby dies. If the mother dies, she can't have more children. If she lives, she can have more babies. If more babies is what you want, you have to protect the mother.

Of course, I don't trust the pro-life at all to observe a ceasefire created by such a law so, in practice, I'd probably oppose it until the tenor of the debate cools.

In any case, my guess is we are doomed to this fight more or less forever because there is no good answer. Forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want, especially in a case where the sex itself was forcible, is abhorrent. Killing a baby is abhorrent. I'm comfortable if we as a society can't settle on a single answer even if most of us are pretty well resolved to our own positions. It's an issue that seems ill-suited to a single answer.

Oh, drones, yes, I am against them. Though obviously, and again zonk has the best point, not as weapons per se, but as ways of carrying out assassinations of civilians without due process and with inevitable killing of innocents along with the supposedly guilty. I'm against that whether the means is drone or commandos.

Anyone else notice that Andy's response offered no explanation for why Hillary isn't currently moping the floor with Sanders.

Gee, that's hard to figure out.

The first two primary states have gotten all the media coverage, and the these first two primary states are more suited to Sanders than any state in the country other than Vermont.

The media love a dogfight, and will play up every angle that feeds into that narrative.

In case you hadn't noticed it, the media's not particularly fond of the Clintons, or any candidate who's been around for more than one election cycle.

Sanders is extremely charismatic and focused, and projects an aura of authenticity that was rather easily acquired in what's essentially been a one party state.

Hillary's been around, and has learned through experience that purity is not a virtue. Purity tends to play quite well in primary races, nuance much less so.

And yet after all that, her followers are more firmly committed to her than the followers of any other candidate are to him, and when the contrast isn't with Sanders but with a Republican, you delude yourself if you think that's likely to change, at least unless Rudy Giuliani becomes Obama's new Attorney General.

Rather, he appears to want to offset his "Hillary against the field" bets with new wagers that don't require Hillary to actually be elected President of the United States. Good strategy.

Yeah, I've backed off of those HATF bets so much that I'm still offering them to any newcomers. But I'm glad to branch out if you've got any other interesting propositions.

Again, Andy, if you want to make a point with the "Oh yeah, bet me" schtick, you can't offer sucker odds.

As I've noted about Andy, words don't have real meaning to him -- just emotive content. So he'll mock Ted Cruz's litigation strategy (of which he knows nothing, based on having read a David Brooks column) by sneering about whether it would set "precedent" (scare quotes in the original), not realizing that in fact, it would set precedent. The word precedent to him doesn't actually mean "a court ruling that controls future cases"; it's just a way of making fun of the idea that everything isn't ad hoc.

So Andy can say something like, "This is guaranteed to happen. I'll give you even money," as just something that sounds good rolling off the tongue, not realizing that the words even money actually mean that he doesn't think it's all that likely to happen.

A question for those abortion absolutists. What other requirements are you willing to put on a woman being forcing her to carry a baby to term against her will? Would you require regular neonatal checkups? Require her to take the appropriate vitamins and supplements? Make her stop drinking alcohol and smoking? Make her quit or take a leave of absence from her job if it could be harmful to the fetus? If not, why not, and if so, how would you propose the state monitor it and what punishments would you mete out for failure to comply?

As I've noted about Andy, words don't have real meaning to him -- just emotive content....So Andy can say something like, "This is guaranteed to happen. I'll give you even money," as just something that sounds good rolling off the tongue, not realizing that the words even money actually mean that he doesn't think it's all that likely to happen.

David, whatever makes you think I don't realize that? I was born at night, but not last night.

Of course when I offer even odds I think I've got the edge. Don't you?

And FTR there've been about half a dozen Primates who've taken me up on that HATF proposition, all of whom think they've got the edge. What's the big deal about any of this?

The latest Emerson (ECPS) poll has Jeb! in second place at 16 percent, 15 points behind Trump. Kasich (13), Rubio (12), and Cruz (11) round out the top five. Interestingly, Jeb!'s support dropped two points from the ECPS poll from two weeks ago while Trump was down four points, Kasich was down one, and Rubio and Cruz were up three.

Whatever one thinks of whether or not abortion should be legal, snapper's assertion that permitting a pregnant rape victim to abort "does nothing to allow her to reassert control over her body" is utterly risible. Helpful hints: "reassertion of control over her body" neither equals nor requires undoing the rape. Moreover, prosecuting the rapist doesn't do anything to allow her to "reassert control over her body" either.

Candidates go out of their way to LOWER expectations. If Rubio "would never announce 3-2-1 as a formal strategy," don't say OMG, if he doesn't finish second, he's DOOMED because some unnamed "allies" may have said something stoopid.

Candidates go out of their way to LOWER expectations, so if Rubio "would never announce 3-2-1 as a formal strategy," then don't say OMG, if he doesn't finish second, he's DOOMED because some unnamed "allies" may have said something stoopid.

As you know, campaigns often have internal strategies that are at odds with the announced public strategy (if there's an announced strategy at all). It sounds like those aforementioned "Rubio allies" committed something of a Kinsley gaffe.

The astonishing thing about the latest GOP NH polls is that they reflect an outcome in which NH may do virtually nothing to winnow the field. Based on the series of polls over the past few days, Christie and Carly might go, but nobody else. (Carson will do terribly but it isn't a Carson state.) Gilmore is running a non-traditional campaign that doesn't revolve around elections or voters. All of Bush/Cruz/Kasich/Rubio may end up nearly tied.

A lot of all this seems to stem from a belief that the individual is sacrosanct and his personal individual rights are of the first importance. They prime. They prime even if the community is threatened. It's the mark, and luxury, of a very successful culture, one that dominates the world in almost every way, that its constituents do not feel they can be called upon sacrifices. They can be asked, but not forced. They can only receive; they never give. They are owed; they never owe.

We were not always encouraged to think this. Yet, now, anything but thinking this seems...well, unthinkable. Not very long ago, and it still persists in sub-culture pockets, women and men made sacrifices, defer to what they consider a greater good outside of themselves. The family, a God, a community, etc. Women not only didn't get abortions, or got few and didn't go public about it, but men married the girls and women they impregnated, and their bodies were on hold, ready to be exposed to sacrifice. The family was everything--at least everyone mouthed that sentiment. Something may have been gained by jettisoning this view, but something also may have been lost. Something we need.

This way that we think now is not the way that has always dominated and it isn't the only way to express rights in a society. And it may not be the best way even if you think society and culture should have other aims besides the fulfillment of the discrete individual, aims which necessarily implicate sacrifice. What is even stranger is how this view, once so prevalent, is now not only relegated to a minority view, but it is all but repressed. People hold it, but keep it to themselves, almost secretly as if they would be ashamed to be counted as one who holds it.

The astonishing thing about the latest GOP NH polls is that they reflect an outcome in which NH may do virtually nothing to winnow the field. Based on the series of polls over the past few days, Christie and Carly might go, but nobody else. (Carson will do terribly but it isn't a Carson state.) Gilmore is running a non-traditional campaign that doesn't revolve around elections or voters. All of Bush/Cruz/Kasich/Rubio may end up nearly tied.

If Bush tops Rubio, I don't think Bush will be dropping out anytime soon.

It's possible, Joe, but again, I would have been more concerned had the NRO author, Tim Alberta, referred to these jokers as "aides."

Alberta said the "allies" were "briefed," which presumably was done by aides and/or donors. No one else would be in position to give such a briefing.

Call it 3-2-1 or not, but at some point, Rubio has to win a state. If it's not Iowa, and it's not NH, and if NH doesn't remotely give him the Marcomentum he'll need heading into SC, then when would Rubio start to win?

You have basically arguing that moral accountability is a vestigial organ that is no longer necessary. Now I don't think you actually believe that (unlike Morty, who I think may) but that's the implication of what you are asserting.

Since this is more or less a throwaway characterization, I don't want to overthink this right now. But I'm not sure I understand how moral accountability would be an organ at all. It perhaps arises from organs, but I would say it necessarily comes about because of our nature and because of the nature of human relations that follows from that. Morals don't exist outside of that expressed in the context of a culture, which also manifests itself as an extended phenotype. It's biological turtles all the way down. At first, anyway.

A question for those abortion absolutists. What other requirements are you willing to put on a woman being forcing her to carry a baby to term against her will? Would you require regular neonatal checkups? Require her to take the appropriate vitamins and supplements? Make her stop drinking alcohol and smoking? Make her quit or take a leave of absence from her job if it could be harmful to the fetus? If not, why not, and if so, how would you propose the state monitor it and what punishments would you mete out for failure to comply?

A question for those abortion absolutists. What other requirements are you willing to put on a woman being forcing her to carry a baby to term against her will? Would you require regular neonatal checkups? Require her to take the appropriate vitamins and supplements? Make her stop drinking alcohol and smoking? Make her quit or take a leave of absence from her job if it could be harmful to the fetus? If not, why not, and if so, how would you propose the state monitor it and what punishments would you mete out for failure to comply?

Those are interesting to ponder, and if one does, one may want to also take into account the following:

What other requirements are you willing to put on a woman being forcing her to carry a baby to term against her will?

A woman already is forced to carry a baby to term, whether she's willing or not, in the late months of her pregnancy. At that point, she needs some good reason to abort.

Would you require regular neonatal checkups? Require her to take the appropriate vitamins and supplements? Make her stop drinking alcohol and smoking? Make her quit or take a leave of absence from her job if it could be harmful to the fetus? If not, why not, and if so, how would you propose the state monitor it and what punishments would you mete out for failure to comply?

That is subsumed in the liability the mother incurs if her actions result in damage to the child. That child can sue the drug-addicted mother, for instance. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if a court held her liable for damages as the result of smoking at some time in the future, if it hasn't already happened. Hey, liberals are the one who beat the drum for a government-engineered society.

The punishment can be criminal and civil, just as it is now as it applies to third parities who injure the fetus/baby.

Call it 3-2-1 or not, but at some point, Rubio has to win a state. If it's not Iowa, and it's not NH, and if NH doesn't remotely give him the Marcomentum he'll need heading into SC, then when would Rubio start to win?

Last I checked, winner-take-all doesn't start until 15 March. Yes, a few victories on the 1st and 8th of March are necessary, but that's a very good possibility once Jeb! and/or Christie withdraw.

It has been some time since I've had to do research on the topic of abortions, but I remember some material that claimed that abortion has been an issue in pretty much every society, even primitive/traditional ones, throughout history. When it's allowed, when it's not, are question that all societies have dealt with. I'm thinking that I remember Tribe's book addressing this.

Call it 3-2-1 or not, but at some point, Rubio has to win a state. If it's not Iowa, and it's not NH, and if NH doesn't remotely give him the Marcomentum he'll need heading into SC, then when would Rubio start to win?

Meanwhile, I wish Ted the very best of luck in the coming weeks capturing states that aren't close to being as dead red as the Iowa GOP voters.

A woman already is forced to carry a baby to term, whether she's willing or not, in the late months of her pregnancy. At that point, she needs some good reason to abort.

Yes, but those women already made the decision to continue with the early pregnancy. The chose to continue, and now bear the responsibility for their decision. The hypothetical rape victim never had that choice.

That is subsumed in the liability the mother incurs if her actions result in damage to the child. That child can sue the drug-addicted mother, for instance. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if a court held her liable for damages as the result of smoking at some time in the future, if it hasn't already happened.

And this speaks to bodily autonomy. The woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy to term has implicitly chosen the responsibility to do the best she can to ensure a healthy baby. The one forced to carry the baby to term against her will now has to live with ongoing mandates of what she must, and may not do with her body for 9 months or face future civil or criminal penalties.

Yes, but those women already made the decision to continue with the early pregnancy. The chose to continue, and now bear the responsibility for their decision. The hypothetical rape victim never had that choice.

She can be said to have made the decision until that capacity is taken away. So, it's just a matter of when that is, isn't it? There's no magical qualitative difference, is there?

And this speaks to bodily autonomy. The woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy to term has implicitly chosen the responsibility to do the best she can to ensure a healthy baby. The one forced to carry the baby to term against her will now has to live with ongoing mandates of what she must, and may not do with her body for 9 months or face future civil or criminal penalties.

If this can be imputed to her as a matter of law, something outside her dominion, once she makes that one decision, why not impute it earlier (or later or not at all)?

The astonishing thing about the latest GOP NH polls is that they reflect an outcome in which NH may do virtually nothing to winnow the field. Based on the series of polls over the past few days, Christie and Carly might go, but nobody else. . . . All of Bush/Cruz/Kasich/Rubio may end up nearly tied.

Maybe, maybe not. Rubio is still 2nd in the RCP poll average, and in some of the post-debate polls. His momentum is apparently slowed, but he may not have lost much, if any, ground. Rubio can still knock some folks out in NH; and whoever finishes behind him will be close to walking dead in South Carolina, even if they don't withdraw. Rubio looked pretty good on his network news appearances tonight, and he's campaigning & running ads. Might have an effect.

I think it's correct that since Rubio showed some vulnerability, the others will want to hang in, hoping another shot at Rubio will help even more. But Christie & Kasich lack money & organization to take advantage of any NH success, and Christie doesn't seem to be moving up at all in the NH polls, either. Maybe the winnowing gets spread over NH & SC, which helps Trump & Cruz a little, but as long as the winnowing comes before the winner-take-all contests that begin March 15, it may not matter that much.

REMINDER: RESULTS FROM DIXVILLE NOTCH & HART'S LANDING WILL BE AVAILABLE IN ABOUT 3 HOURS. This is Gilmore's best chance.

There was once a time when infants were considered sub-human. This is pretty clear from ancient literature. In the Old Testament, we see the Canaanites would offer their children as sacrifices to their gods. There would be no need for a law "do not sacrifice your children to Molech" unless people really were doing that. In Leviticus, parents are permitted to have a disobedient child put to death. From these examples, I infer a cultural belief that people are considered property of their parents, rather than their own person, until they are adults. In Sophocles' "Oedipus the King," Oedipus' parents gave baby Oedipus to a shepherd and told him to leave him out to die. Even in recent modern times, in Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart," people of the local culture would have any infants would abnormalities (or if they're perfectly healthy twins!) dropped off in the forest to die.

Thankfully (imo) our society has rejected the idea that children are just their parents property (though many parents still try to act this way) and now have legal protection for children starting at birth. The natural evolution of this process to eventually respect life at all stages of development, though we have unfortunately not reached that stage of development yet. What makes the shift so difficult is that the people harmed by abortion have no power to do anything about it.

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable, unrecoverable. And it is recognized that the use and abuse are not distinct phenomena but somehow a synthesized reality: both are true at the same time as if they were one harmonious truth instead of mutually exclusive contradictions. Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality. She, a human being, is supposed to have a privacy that is absolute; except that she, a woman, has a hole between her legs that men can, must, do enter. This hole, her hole, is synonymous with entry. A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry. A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry. The slit between her legs, so simple, so hidden-- frankly, so innocent-- for instance, to the child who looks with a mirror to see if it could be true--is there an entrance to her body down there? and something big comes into it? (how?) and something as big as a baby comes out of it? (how?) and doesn't that hurt?--that slit which means entry into her-- intercourse--appears to be the key to women's lower human status. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, she is intended to have a lesser privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her body can be physically occupied and in the occupation taken over. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, this lesser privacy, this lesser integrity, this lesser self, establishes her lesser significance: not just in the world of social policy but in the world of bare, true, real existence. She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry; and intercourse, the act fundamental to existence, has consequences to her being that may be intrinsic, not socially imposed.

There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?